AI FTP Detection, Altitude Training, CHO Periodization and More – Ask a Cycling Coach 392

sorry I was talking with my mom - she turned me on to that movie in the mid 1980s. Here is the full scene, its set in the 1940s:

I was also thinking about the podcast “glory days” of the TR podcast and watching some old ones. I even re-watched some of the 2020 group ramp tests and dissection of the ramp tests and other podcasts from that time. I agree with the idea of following and getting to know some TR athletes using the plans, analyzing their progressions and FTP changes, getting feedback on their workouts from one of the coaches.


I liked this podcast. I thought the discussions about the muscle types and their association with different recovery times/over-reaching interesting and possibly enlightening about my own experiences cycling. I like the different formats and hope that they continue to do different things.

1 Like

Maybe you’re just too young :grin: I grew up on this movie every Christmas.

Also, probably not a thing in Australia.

Maybe you’re just too old :wink:

Lol, my FTP tests and creaky knees would agree!

Sorry, this one wasn’t for me. I do subscribe to science of getting faster, but I have to be in the right mind set and was a bit disappointed it wasn’t the “normal” show. And I do enjoy the regular Chad Deep Dives, in the context of the normal show.

Kinda miss the usual intro’s when they’re skipped too.

It doesn’t feel right when the podcast starts and you dive right in without an intro. It’s a “Show” so it greatly benefits from having a recognizable format and branding: The normal “Hi and Welcome to… This week we have x & y and z with us and we’re gonna talk about blah de blah…” and then you can start talking…

Keep it fun and chatty as much as informative. Many of us listen to this as part of a long commute so if it’s so esoteric and boring that i switch it off after 5 minutes and drive in silence then it feels like a bit of a fail this week.


This was the first one I did not get all the way through. Some others have mentioned it - but diving right in with no light banter between hosts before set a tone that was dull and boring - sorry Chad and Sarah! I am not one that enjoys the deep dives or super sciencey stuff at all. But while I generally listen through the deep dives this was just too much. Would have been better as a Science of Getting Faster episode.

To join in with others I also miss the banter and hearing what is going on with the hosts. While the info provided is great and answering the questions of listeners - half the reason I tune in weekly is to hear what is going on with the hosts and their goals and progressions.

1 Like

This was my first time to listen to a TR podcast, so I don’t have a reference for what everyone is complaining about. With 392 episodes, it’s hard to know where to begin. Is there a list of “greatest hits” episodes to get a better feel for what people felt was missing here?

I thought this episode was interesting, but 100% could have used an intro. I also think other’s are right that it could potentially be better suited for the science of getting faster.

If I remember right, Chad just jumped into the research he was reading. It would have been nice to ask Chad why he is reading this research, why he finds it interesting, if/how he intends on using it, etc., etc.

More broadly - I think they are forgetting the title of the podcast (as @maletero mentioned). The way I view it - TR as a platform is a coach-less training program. The ask a cycling coach podcast is what gives its users access to a coach. Not all of the questions are pertinent to me, but a lot of them are. And usually when they aren’t the answers are interesting nonetheless.

I feel like Nate was the proxy “listener”, and now that he is on the podcast less frequently, and he isn’t training for cycling, they are really missing this. But this goes back to the point about the title - this effectively gave us a trainer-trainee conversation.

I wish I could fill this void, as I have all sorts of issues I need to overcome and discuss :joy:


It’s hard to pinpoint specific podcasts, but from memory I’d say the range from about 180-280 is a good place to start. That’s when TR really caught fire in a sense with the podcast taking hold, the FB group really building which then lead to the forum creation. Most of the hosts were actively cycling and there was a range of events they used to drive their training and they shared that along with other experiences tangential to that. I know I had plenty of enjoyment and great takeaways for training and racing that I applied in my events in that time (and since).


I think this is a great point. Obviously, Nate brought more to the table than just being the “normal guy” but he was the normal guy among that group. Chad and Jonathan are both machines in their own way; if they’re stopping by Popeye’s on the way home from the group ride, they’re certainly not going to talk about that on the show!

I kind of like the idea of bringing an amateur TR athlete on the show (whatever happened to the Successful Athlete podcast?) but I would urge caution on this. NorCal Cycling did this last year, and I think there are some lessons to be learned from that experiment.


Yes, in many ways Nate was always a great proxy for the average TR listener, and the average TR user.

For me, the ideal podcast is a mix of…

  • A couple minutes of TR News if there is any
  • Informal discussion around what the hosts/guests are up to over the last week and in the coming week. Depending on the time of year this could be training, race recaps, season planning. off season, etc… This is/was always most interesting for me because it gives a mix of motivation, learning, and interest… along with some personality from everyone.
  • Q + A
  • Small + Medium Deep dive, especially related to any of the above.

If the hosts are racing less themselves, it’d be great to hear from a group who are occasionally. And particularly from people who are at a mix of experience levels. I’d love to hear from the Cat 5, 4, 3s out there who bring the relatable inexperience, insecurity, etc.


I love the podcast, but this one also didn’t do it for me. A lot of discussion about science that was . . . ultimately inconclusive. If the science can’t be reduced to actionable take aways, then it’s purely academic and what’s the point? I much prefer the “conversational” pod casts, whether with guests or not. I know it has to be hard trying to keep it fresh, there’s been a lot of experimentation lately with the format. This format, the Abstract, just didn’t work for me. I don’t post a lot here, but I disliked this podcast enough to come and put in some feedback because I really like the podcast.


This is what I miss most. Nate started with a low FTP and worked on improving and he succeeded. He would try anything. Hearing what he did just helped me know what to do and what not to do. Nate was bringing up things he would do and talk about the aspects he was dealing with in his training. It really was engaging to listen to.